Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-jp8mt Total loading time: 0.468 Render date: 2022-12-01T21:39:40.784Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

The effects of skeletal asymmetry on interpreting biologic variation and taphonomy in the fossil record

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 December 2018

Brandon P. Hedrick
Affiliation:
Museum of Comparative Zoology and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A. E-mail: bphedrick1@gmail.com, spierce@oeb.harvard.edu.
Emma R. Schachner
Affiliation:
Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, U.S.A. E-mail: eschachner@gmail.com
Gabriel Rivera
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178, U.S.A.GabrielRivera@creighton.edu
Peter Dodson
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, U.S.A., and Department of Animal Biology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, U.S.A. E-mail: dodsonp@vet.upenn.edu
Stephanie E. Pierce
Affiliation:
Museum of Comparative Zoology and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A. E-mail: bphedrick1@gmail.com, spierce@oeb.harvard.edu.

Abstract

Biologic asymmetry is present in all bilaterally symmetric organisms as a result of normal developmental instability. However, fossilized organisms, which have undergone distortion due to burial, may have additional asymmetry as a result of taphonomic processes. To investigate this issue, we evaluated the magnitude of shape variation resulting from taphonomy on vertebrate bone using a novel application of fluctuating asymmetry. We quantified the amount of total variance attributed to asymmetry in a taphonomically distorted fossil taxon and compared it with that of three extant taxa. The fossil taxon had an average of 27% higher asymmetry than the extant taxa. In spite of the high amount of taphonomic input, the major axes of shape variation were not greatly altered by removal of the asymmetric component of shape variation. This presents the possibility that either underlying biologic trends drive the principal directions of shape change irrespective of asymmetric taphonomic distortion or that the symmetric taphonomic component is large enough that removing only the asymmetric component is inadequate to restore fossil shape. Our study is the first to present quantitative data on the relative magnitude of taphonomic shape change and presents a new method to further explore how taphonomic processes impact our interpretation of the fossil record.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 154 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Present address: Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3AN, U.K.

Data available from the Dryad Digital Repository: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.2b6039d

References

Literature Cited

Adams, D. C., and Otárola-Castillo, E.. 2013. geomorph: an R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4:393399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angielczyk, K. D., and Sheets, H. D.. 2007. Investigation of simulated tectonic deformation in fossils using geometric morphometrics. Paleobiology 33:125148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arbour, V. M., and Currie, P. J.. 2012. Analyzing taphonomic deformation of ankylosaur skulls using retrodeformation and finite element analysis. PLoS ONE 7:e39323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baert, M., Burns, M. E., and Currie, P. J.. 2014. Quantitative diagenetic analyses of Edmontosaurus regalis (Dinosauria: Hadrosauridae) postcranial elements from the Danek Bonebed, Upper Cretaceous Horseshoe Canyon Formation, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: implications for allometric studies of fossil organisms. Canada Journal of Earth Science 51:10071016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balmford, A., Jones, I. L., and Thomas, A. L. R.. 1993. On avian asymmetry: evidence of natural selection for symmetrical tails and wings in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 252:245251.Google Scholar
Bongard, J. C., and Paul, C.. 2000. Investigating morphological symmetry and locomotive efficiency using virtual embodied evolution. In Proceedings of the Sixth Internation Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, 420–429. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, A. A., and Motani, R.. 2008. Three-dimensional re-evaluation of the deformation removal technique based on “jigsaw puzzling.” Palaeontologia Electronica 11(2):7A.Google Scholar
Brusatte, S. L., Sakamoto, M., Montanari, S., and Harcourt Smith, W. E. H.. 2012. The evolution of cranial form and function in theropod dinosaurs: insights from geometric morphometrics. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 25:365377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, R. A. 1990. Interpretation of tectonically deformed fossils. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 33:321332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. H., and Reynolds, S. J.. 1996. Structural geology of rocks and regions, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Dongen, S. V. 2006. Fluctuating asymmetry and developmental instability in evolutionary biology: past, present, and future. European Society for Evolutionary Biology 19:17271743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fank, A. 1929. Die bruchlose Deformation von Fossilien durch tektonischen Druckundihr Einflussaufdie Bestimmungder Arten. Unpublished dissertation, University of Zurich, Switzerland. 59 p., 16 tables.Google Scholar
Foth, C., Hedrick, B. P., and Ezcurra, M. D.. 2016. Cranial ontogenetic variation in early saurischians and the role of heterochrony in the diversification of predatory dinosaurs. PeerJ 4:e1589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galeotti, P., Sacchi, R., and Vicario, V.. 2005. Fluctuating asymmetry in body traits increases predation risks: tawny owl selection against asymmetric woodmice. Evolutionary Ecology 19:405418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunz, P., Mitteroecker, P., Neubauer, S., Weber, G. W., and Bookstein, F. L.. 2009. Principles for the virtual reconstruction of hominin crania. Journal of Human Evolution 47:4862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambly, C., Harper, E. J., and Speakman, J. R.. 2004. The energetic cost of variations in wing span and wing asymmetry in the zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata. Journal of Experimental Biology 207:39773984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedrick, B. P., and Dodson, P.. 2013. Lujiatun psittacosaurids: understanding individual and taphonomic variation using 3D geometric morphometrics. PLoS ONE 8:e69265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, N. C., and Jell, P. A.. 1992. A statistical/computer-graphic technique for assessing variation in tectonically deformed fossils and its application to Cambrian trilobites from Kashmir. Lethaia 25:317330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingenberg, C. P., and McIntyre, G. S.. 1998. Geometric morphometrics of developmental instability: analyzing patterns of fluctuating asymmetry with Procrustes methods. Evolution 52:13631375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klingenberg, C. P., Barluenga, M., and Meyer, A.. 2002. Shape analysis of symmetric structures: quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution 56:19091920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leamy, L. J., and Klingenberg, C. P.. 2005. The genetics and evolution of fluctuating asymmetry. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36:121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maidment, S. C. R., and Barrett, P. M.. 2012. Osteological correlates for quadrupedality in ornithischian dinosaurs. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 59:5370.Google Scholar
Maiorino, L., Farke, A. A., Kotsakis, T., and Piras, P.. 2013. Is Torosaurus Triceratops? Geometric morphometrics evidence of Late Maastrichtian ceratopsid dinosaurs. PLoS ONE 8:e81608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mardia, K. V., Bookstein, F. L., and Moreton, I. J.. 2000. Statistical assessment of bilateral symmetry of shapes. Biometrika 87:285300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Møller, A. P., and Thornhill, R.. 1998. Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. American Naturalist 151:174192.Google ScholarPubMed
Motani, R. 1997. New technique for retrodeforming tectonically deformed fossils, with an example for ichthyosaurian specimens. Lethaia 30:221228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogihara, N., Nakatsukasa, M., Nakano, Y., and Ishida, H.. 2006. Computerized restoration of nonhomogenous deformation of a fossil cranium based on bilateral symmetry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 130:19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olejnik, S., and Algina, J.. 2003. Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods 8:434447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez, S. I., Bernal, V., and Gonzalez, P. N.. 2006. Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation. Journal of Anatomy 208:769784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierce, S. E., Angielczyk, K. D., and Rayfield, E. J.. 2009. Shape and mechanics in thalattosuchian (Crocodylomorpha) skulls: implications for feeding behaviour and niche partitioning. Journal of Anatomy 215:555576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preston, C. R. 2000. Red-tailed hawk. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Penn. 103 pp.Google Scholar
Ramsay, J. G., and Huber, M. I.. 1983. The techniques of modern structural geology, Vol. 1. Strain analysis. Academic, London.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org. Accessed 15 February 2018.Google Scholar
Rivera, G., and Claude, J.. 2008. Environmental media and shape asymmetry: a case study on turtle shells. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 94:483489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivera, G., and Stayton, C. T.. 2013. Effects of asymmetry on the strength of the chelonian shell: a comparison of three species. Journal of Morphology 274:901908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohlf, F. J. 2006. tpsDig, digitize landmarks and outlines, Version 2.05. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, N.Y.Google Scholar
Schmieder, D. A., Benítez, H. A., Borissov, I. M., and Fruciano, C.. 2015. Bat species comparisons based on external morphology: a test of traditional versus geometric morphometric approaches. PLoS ONE 10:e0127043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sereno, P. C. 2010. Taxonomy, cranial morphology, and relationships of parrot-beaked dinosaurs (Ceratopsia: Psittacosaurus). Pp. 2158 in Ryan, M. J., Chinnery-Allgeier, B. J., and Eberth, D. A., eds. New perspectives on horned dinosaurs. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Swaddle, J. P. 2003. Fluctuating asymmetry, animal behavior, and evolution. Advances in the Study of Behavior 32:169206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaddle, J. P., and Johnson, C. W.. 2007. European starlings are capable of discriminating subtle size asymmetries in paired stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 87:3949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tschopp, E., Russo, J., and Dzemski, G.. 2013. Retrodeformation as a test for the validity of phylogenetic characters: an example from diplodocid sauropod vertebrae. Palaeontologia Electronica 16:123.Google Scholar
White, T. 2003. Early hominids—diversity or distortion? Science 299:19941997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willmore, K. E., Klingenberg, C. P., and Hallgrímsson, B.. 2005. The relationship between fluctuating asymmetry and environmental variance in rhesus macaque skulls. Evolution 59:898909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witmer, L. M. 1995. The extant phylogenetic bracket and the importance of reconstructing soft tissues in fossils. Pp. 1933 in Thomason, J., ed. Functional morphology in vertebrate paleontology. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., Wood, A. R., Bonett, R. M., and Swiderski, D. L.. 2008. Modularity of the rodent mandible: integrating bones, muscles, and teeth. Evolution and Development 10:756768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., Sheets, H. D., and Fink, W. L.. 2012. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer, 2nd ed. Elsevier Academic, London.Google Scholar
Zhao, Q., Benton, M. J., Sullivan, C., Sander, P. M., and Xing, X.. 2013. Histology and postural change during the growth of the ceratopsian dinosaur Psittacosaurus lujiatunesis. Nature Communications 4(2079):18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The effects of skeletal asymmetry on interpreting biologic variation and taphonomy in the fossil record
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The effects of skeletal asymmetry on interpreting biologic variation and taphonomy in the fossil record
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The effects of skeletal asymmetry on interpreting biologic variation and taphonomy in the fossil record
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *